The role of biologic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction

Is There Indication for the Use of Biological Mesh in Cancer Patients?

Up to 28% of all patients who undergo open surgery will develop a ventral hernia (VH) in the post-operative period. VH surgery is a debated topic in the literature, especially in oncological patients due to complex management. We searched in the surgical database of the Hepatobiliary Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Naples “G. Pascale Foundation” for all patients who underwent abdominal surgery for malignancy from January 2010 to December 2018. Our surgical approach and our choice of mesh for VH repair was planned case-by-case. We selected 57 patients that fulfilled our inclusion criteria, and we divided them into two groups: biological versus synthetic prosthesis. Anterior component separation was used in 31 patients (54.4%) vs. bridging procedure in 26 (45.6%). In 41 cases (71.9%), we used a biological mesh while a synthetic one was adopted in the remaining patients. Of our patients, 57% were male (33 male vs. 24 female) with a median age of 65 and a mean BMI of 30.8. We collected ventral hernia defects from 35 cm² to 600 cm² (mean 205.2 cm²); 30-day complications were present in 24 patients (42.1%), no 30-day mortality was reported, and 21 patients had a recurrence of pathology during study follow-up. This study confirms VH recurrence risk is not related with the type of mesh but is strongly related with BMI and type of surgery also in oncological patients.

What is the evidence for the use of biologic or biosynthetic meshes in abdominal wall reconstruction?

INTRODUCTION

Although many surgeons have adopted the use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in complex abdominal wall hernia repair, others have questioned the use of these products. Criticism is addressed in several review articles on the poor standard of studies reporting on the use of biologic meshes for different abdominal wall repairs. The aim of this consensus review is to conduct an evidence-based analysis of the efficacy of biologic and biosynthetic meshes in predefined clinical situations.

METHODS

A European working group, "BioMesh Study Group", composed of invited surgeons with a special interest in surgical meshes, formulated key questions, and forwarded them for processing in subgroups. In January 2016, a workshop was held in Berlin where the findings were presented, discussed, and voted on for consensus. Findings were set out in writing by the subgroups followed by consensus being reached. For the review, 114 studies and background analyses were used.

RESULTS

The cumulative data regarding biologic mesh under contaminated conditions do not support the claim that it is better than synthetic mesh. Biologic mesh use should be avoided when bridging is needed. In inguinal hernia repair biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not have a clear advantage over the synthetic meshes. For prevention of incisional or parastomal hernias, there is no evidence to support the use of biologic/biosynthetic meshes. In complex abdominal wall hernia repairs (incarcerated hernia, parastomal hernia, infected mesh, open abdomen, enterocutaneous fistula, and component separation technique), biologic and biosynthetic meshes do not provide a superior alternative to synthetic meshes.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of biologic and biosynthetic meshes cannot be recommended.

Synthetic Mesh Repair for Incisional Hernia Treatment in High-risk Patients for Surgical Site Occurrences

Patients with incisional hernias (IH) and risk factors for surgical site occurrences (SSOs) such as defined comorbidities and/or potential contaminations are considered to be treated with bioprosthetics. A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who had undergone elective IH repair with synthetic mesh materials between 2009 and 2013 was conducted. Only patients who were classified into Grades II and III according to the classification of the Ventral Hernia Working Group (VHWG) were considered for the study. Primary outcome parameter was the incidence of SSO. The relationships among demographics, hernia characteristics, surgical technique, and SSOs were also evaluated. Overall, 108 patients were included (Grade II: 68, Grade III: 40). SSO was identified in 14 patients. Having two or more comorbidities ( P = 0.04), an open sublay technique ( P = 0.005), duration of operation ( P = 0.02), larger hernia defects ( P = 0.001), and using larger mesh sizes ( P = 0.01) were associated with significantly higher rates of SSO. Affiliation to VHWG Grading II or III showed no impact on SSO occurrence. Synthetic mesh repair both in an “open sublay” and laparoscopic intraperitoneal technique is safe regarding patients with risk factors for SSO. The recommendations of the VHWG must be declined and a modification of the grading system is warranted overlooking a more liberal use of synthetic meshes.

Bioprosthetic tissue matrices in complex abdominal wall reconstruction

Background:

Complex abdominal defects are difficult problems encountered by surgeons in multiple specialties. Although current evidence supports the primary repair of these defects with mesh reinforcement, it is unclear which mesh is superior for any given clinical scenario. The purpose of this review was to explore the characteristics of and clinical relevance behind bioprosthetic tissue matrices in an effort to better clarify their role in abdominal wall reconstruction.

Methods:

We reviewed the peer-reviewed literature on the use of bioprosthetic mesh in human subjects. Basic science articles and large retrospective and prospective reviews were included in author’s analysis. The clinical performance and characteristics of 13 bioprosthetic tissue matrices were evaluated.

Results:

The majority of the products evaluated perform well in contaminated fields, where the risk of wound-healing difficulties is high. Clinical outcomes, which included infection, reherniation, and bulge formation, were variable, and the majority of the studies had a mean follow-up of less than 24 months.

Conclusions:

Although bioprosthetic matrix has a multitude of indications within the growing field of abdominal wall reconstruction, the functionality, regenerative capacity, and long-term fate of these products have yet to be fully established. Furthermore, the clinical performance, indications, and contraindications for each type of matrix need to be fully evaluated in long-term outcome studies.